Another scenario;

Looks like solicitation email but looks like people get emails like this.

If you own the plane, could you not provide sightseeing services under 119.1?

 

14 CFR 119.1 regards applicability to Part 119, which in turn regards applicability to Part 121 and 135. It is not an authorization to conduct sightseeing flights.

Are you referring to 119.1(e)(2), which provides an exemption to the requirements of 119, and subsequent applicable parts of the regulation? That's not an authorization; it's an exemption, and there's an important difference. Note the language of 119.1(e)(2):

§ 119.1 Applicability.
(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to—
(2) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted after September 11, 2007, in an airplane or helicopter having a standard airworthiness certificate and passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport, in compliance with the Letter of Authorization issued under § 91.147 of this chapter. For nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in accordance with part 136, subpart B of this chapter, National Parks Air Tour Management, the requirements of part 119 of this chapter apply unless excepted in § 136.37(g)(2). For Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2, part 93, subpart U, and part 119 of this chapter, as applicable, apply.

Notice the underlined part.

Referring to 91.147, we'll find that unless your'e operating under 91.146 (charitable flights or flights attached to a charitable event), you're considered an operator if you do flights within a 25 nm radius of the point of departure, conduct landings at no other point, and meet the exemption points outlined above in 119.1(e)(2).

In such a case, an operator must have a letter of authorization, and the pilots and mechanics must be under a drug screening program. The letter of authorization becomes additional regulation applicable to you, and you're responsible for compliance with all the points and stipulations outlined in that authorization.

Aside from the issue of requiring the operators letter of authorization to conduct the scenic flights, you're also faced with the issue of holding out. In the scenario you present, someone has contacted you based on your making public your death valley flying exploits. Whether you actually advertise the flying, or are contacted based on your reputation by other means (word of mouth included), you can be judged to be holding out, and that may serve against you when considering the nature of the flight.

Also note that if a landing is made at any point other than the point of departure, the flight has crossed into the realm of an illegal charter.

Whatever answer you receive at the FSDO level carries no legal weight, and is not defensible. That is to say that if the FSDO gives you an answer and you act on it, you can still be violated if the answer was wrong. At no point can you say "the FSDO told me so" and have it serve in your favor, because the FSDO level is never authorized to interpret regulation, and cannot alter the regulation. Remember the oft-used phrase that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," and receiving an answer contrary to the regulation is no excuse for violation, regardless of what the FSDO inspector tells you, and regardless of whether you have it in writing.

By all means, but it won't do anything for you, can't be used in your defense, and won't help you in the event you suffer enforcement action. The FSDO doesn't have authority to interpret regulation. That authority rests with the Regional and Chief Legal Counsel, as authorized by the Administrator. Such authorization is not granted at the FSDO level. The FSDO level may initiate enforcement action, but may not provide a legally defensible definition or interpretation of the regulation.

There have been cases in the past in which aviators acted on the counsel received at one FSDO, and were the subject of enforcement action by a different FSDO. You may eventually skate out of it, but it will be expensive, time consuming, and damaging to your career.

If you're inclined, you can research some of the FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation at:

Regulations Division - Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions

A good investment is the Summit Publications regulatory library (» About Us) and you'd do well to bookmark the FSIMS (Flight Standards Information Management System) site, too. Flight Standards Information System (FSIMS)

 

Thanks John,

I knew that and should have never mentioned it or at least provided the disclaimer and clarification as you did. That bit about the FSDO was something I got from an examiner about 40 years ago; not the most current or best advice on my part... Also thanks for the link to the Counsels opinions I mentioned.

 

I mentioned the issue with FSDO authority because it's very misunderstood in the industry. It, like a lot of mythology, abounds unabated. One of my favorites is the notion that if one lets an inspector hold his or her pilot certiicate, it's been "surrendered." Stupid, but a lot of folks still believe it, and still preach it (along with ground effect being a cushion of air beneath the wings). Small steps.

 

I was aware of that also... but again good advice. In my enthusiasm to help others, especially the newbies, I need to be carefull and take the time, like you do, to fully explain as necessary. In the post you called me on, I was in a hurry and on my way out the door. Not the best position for me to be in when dispensing advice that could impact ones life or career... Thanks again.